Trump Surrenders to the Iron Law of Oligarchy

Many observers, especially among his fans,
suspect that the seemingly untamable Trump has already been housebroken by the
Washington, “globalist” establishment. If true, the downfall of Trump’s National
Security Adviser Michael Flynn less than a month into the new presidency may
have been a warning sign. And the turning point would have been the removal
of Steven K. Bannon from the National Security Council on April 5.

Until then, the presidency’s early policies
had a recognizably populist-nationalist orientation. During his administration’s
first weeks, Trump’s biggest supporters frequently tweeted the hashtag #winning
and exulted that he was decisively doing exactly what, on the campaign trail,
he said he would do.

In a flurry of executive orders and other unilateral
actions bearing Bannon’s fingerprints, Trump withdrew from the Trans-Pacific
Partnership, declared a sweeping travel ban, instituted harsher deportation
policies, and more.

These policies seemed to fit Trump’s reputation
as the “tribune
of poor white people,” as he has
been called; above all, Trump’s base calls for protectionism and immigration
restrictions. Trump seemed to be delivering on the populist promise of his inauguration
speech (thought to be written by Bannon), in which he said:

“Today’s ceremony, however, has very special
meaning. Because today we are not merely transferring power from one administration
to another, or from one party to another – but we are transferring
power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the American People.

For too long, a small group in our nation’s
Capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the
cost. Washington flourished – but the people did not share in its wealth.
Politicians prospered – but the jobs left, and the factories closed.

The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country.
Their victories have not been your victories; their triumphs have not been your
triumphs; and while they celebrated in our nation’s capital, there was little
to celebrate for struggling families all across our land.

That all changes – starting right here,
and right now, because this moment is your moment: it belongs to you.

It belongs to everyone gathered here today
and everyone watching all across America. This is your day. This is your celebration.
And this, the United States of America, is your country.

What truly matters is not which party controls
our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people. January
20th 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became the rulers
of this nation again. The forgotten men and women of our country
will be forgotten no longer.

Everyone is listening to you now.” [Emphasis added.]

After a populist insurgency stormed social
media and the voting booths, American democracy, it seemed, had been wrenched
from the hands of the Washington elite and restored to “the people,” or at least
a large, discontented subset of “the people.” And this happened in spite of
the establishment, the mainstream media, Hollywood, and “polite opinion” throwing
everything it had at Trump.

The Betrayal

But for the past month, the administration’s
axis seems to have shifted. This shift was especially abrupt in Trump’s Syria
policy.

Days before Bannon’s fall from grace, US Ambassador
to the UN Nikki Haley declared that forcing Syrian president Bashar al-Assad
from power was no longer top priority. This too was pursuant of Trump’s populist
promises.

Trump’s nationalist fans are sick of the globalist
wars that America never seems to win. They are hardly against war per se. They
are perfectly fine with bombing radical Islamists, even if it means mass innocent
casualties. But they have had enough of expending American blood and treasure
to overthrow secular Arab dictators to the benefit of Islamists; so, it seemed,
was Trump. They also saw no nationalist advantage in the globalists’ renewed
Cold War against Assad’s ally Russian president Vladimir Putin, another enemy
of Islamists.

The Syrian pivot also seemed to fulfill the hopes and dreams of some antiwar
libertarians who had pragmatically supported Trump. For them, acquiescing to
the unwelcome planks of Trump’s platform was a price worth paying for overthrowing
the establishment policies of regime change in the Middle East and hostility
toward nuclear Russia. While populism wasn’t an unalloyed friend of liberty,
these libertarians thought, at least it could be harnessed to sweep away the
war-engineering elites. And since war is the health of the state, that could
redirect history’s momentum in favor of liberty.

But then it all evaporated. Shortly after Bannon’s
ouster from the NSC, in response to an alleged, unverified chemical attack on
civilians, Trump bombed one of Assad’s airbases (something even globalist Obama
had balked at doing when offered the exact same excuse), and regime change in
Syria was top priority once again. The establishment media swooned over Trump’s
newfound willingness to be “presidential.”

Since then, Trump has reneged on one campaign
promise after another. He dropped any principled repeal of Obamacare. He threw
cold water on expectations for prompt fulfillment of his signature promise:
the construction of a Mexico border wall. And he announced an imminent withdrawal
from NAFTA, only to walk that announcement back the very next day.

Here I make no claim as to whether any of these
policy reversals are good or bad. I only point out that they run counter to
the populist promises he had given to his core constituents.

Poor white people, “the forgotten men and women
of our country,” have been forgotten once again. Their “tribune” seems to be
turning out to be just another agent of the power elite.

Who yanked his chain? Was there a palace coup?
Was the CIA involved? Has Trump been threatened? Or, after constant obstruction,
has he simply concluded that if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em?

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

Regardless of how it came about, it seems clear
that whatever prospect there was for a truly populist Trump presidency is gone
with the wind. Was it inevitable that this would happen, one way or another?

One person who might have thought so was German
sociologist Robert Michels, who posited the “iron law of oligarchy” in his 1911
work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies
of Modern Democracy.

Michels argued that political organizations,
no matter how democratically structured, rarely remain truly populist, but inexorably
succumb to oligarchic control.

Even in a political system based on popular
sovereignty, Michels pointed out that, “the sovereign masses are altogether
incapable of undertaking the most necessary resolutions.” This is true for simple,
unavoidable technical reasons: “such a gigantic number of persons belonging
to a unitary organization cannot do any practical work upon a system of direct
discussion.”

This practical limitation necessitates delegation of decision-making to officeholders.
These delegates may at first be considered servants of the masses:

“All the offices are filled by election. The officials, executive organs
of the general will, play a merely subordinate part, are always dependent upon
the collectivity, and can be deprived of their office at any moment. The mass
of the party is omnipotent.”

But these delegates will inevitably become
specialists in the exercise and consolidation of power, which they gradually
wrest away from the “sovereign people”:

“The technical specialization that inevitably results from all extensive
organization renders necessary what is called expert leadership. Consequently
the power of determination comes to be considered one of the specific attributes
of leadership, and is gradually withdrawn from the masses to be concentrated
in the hands of the leaders alone. Thus the leaders, who were at first no more
than the executive organs of the collective will, soon emancipate themselves
from the mass and become independent of its control.

Organization implies the tendency to oligarchy. In every organization, whether
it be a political party, a professional union, or any other association of the
kind, the aristocratic tendency manifests itself very clearly.”

Trumped by the Deep State

Thus elected, populist “tribunes” like Trump are ultimately no match for entrenched
technocrats nestled in permanent bureaucracy. Especially invincible are technocrats
who specialize in political force and intrigue, i.e., the National Security
State (military, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc.). And these elite functionaries don’t serve
“the people” or any large subpopulation. They only serve their own careers,
and by extension, big-money special interest groups that make it worth their
while: especially big business and foreign lobbies. The nexus of all these powers
is what is known as the Deep State.

Trump’s more sophisticated champions were aware
of these dynamics, but held out hope nonetheless. They thought that Trump would
be an exception, because his large personal fortune would grant him immunity
from elite influence. That factor did contribute to the independent, untamable
spirit of his campaign. But as I
predicted
during the Republican primaries:

“…while Trump might be able to seize the presidency in spite of establishment
opposition, he will never be able to wield it without establishment support.”

No matter how popular, rich, and bombastic,
a populist president simply cannot rule without access to the levers of power.
And that access is under the unshakable control of the Deep State. If Trump
wants to play president, he has to play ball.

On these grounds, I advised his fans over a
year ago, “…don’t hold out hope that Trump will make good on his isolationist
rhetoric…” and anticipated, “a complete rapprochement between the populist rebel
and the Republican establishment.” I also warned that, far from truly threatening
the establishment and the warfare state, Trump’s populist insurgency would only
invigorate them:

“Such phony establishment “deaths” at the hands of “grassroots” outsiders
followed by “rebirths” (rebranding) are an excellent way for moribund oligarchies
to renew themselves without actually meaningfully changing. Each “populist”
reincarnation of the power elite is draped with a freshly-laundered mantle of
popular legitimacy, bestowing on it greater license to do as it pleases. And
nothing pleases the State more than war.”

Politics, even populist politics, is the oligarchy’s
game. And the house always wins.

Dan Sanchez is the Digital Content Manager at the Foundation for Economic
Education (FEE), developing educational and inspiring content for FEE.org,
including articles and courses. The originally appeared on the FEE
website and is reprinted with the author’s permission.